If my contacts are correct, one of the required items wlil be insurance for the new firms. I don't have a problem with in surance, but I have lots of issues with the State micromanaging my business to that extent. If insurance, how about a stand alone office; copies of tax returns? Contracts with ranges? etc etc

I thought that it was stated right in the law that the instructor and issuing sheriff could not be held liable for the permit holders actions? I just looked over the 2005 version of the law and cannot find it now.

joelr

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:02 pm

The Man

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 amPosts: 7970Location: Minneapolis MN

phorvick wrote:

If my contacts are correct, one of the required items wlil be insurance for the new firms. I don't have a problem with in surance, but I have lots of issues with the State micromanaging my business to that extent. If insurance, how about a stand alone office; copies of tax returns? Contracts with ranges? etc etc

I'm trying to be reasonable about this, but the requirements do seem to keep spiraling up. What's next? Fingerprinting? Sperm samples?

The good news is that I may need to backtrack on the insurance requirement. Some clarification came to me that "...a number of the parties invited to comment on the standards have pushed for an insurance requirement; however, nothing official has been issued by the DPS/BCA."

So it appears that the impetus to require insurance is coming from other sources than the BCA. Hopefully, it will be trashed as being way beyond the scope of what the BCA should be doing.

The good news is that I may need to backtrack on the insurance requirement. Some clarification came to me that "...a number of the parties invited to comment on the standards have pushed for an insurance requirement; however, nothing official has been issued by the DPS/BCA."

So it appears that the impetus to require insurance is coming from other sources than the BCA. Hopefully, it will be trashed as being way beyond the scope of what the BCA should be doing.

Doesn't sound to me like it's you who is doing the backtracking. After all, nothing official -- on any of this -- has been issued by the DPS/BCA, and given that their first self-proclaimed issue date was almost a month ago, and their second self-proclaimed issue date was more than a week ago, that's troubling.

What I think should be happening -- and I don't know of any sign of it happening, as of yet -- is that the BCA/DPS should be issuing clear, simple, unambiguous guidance to individual instructors as to how they're to maintain their certification under the new rules -- whatever they turn out to be -- which are due to take effect October 1.

dustoff

Post subject: Insurance requirement

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:12 pm

Journeyman Member

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:14 amPosts: 68Location: Plymouth, MN

I'm generally not too worried regarding the insurance requirement, but what kind of insurance are they talking about?
Liability - if a former student (or student's victim) sues you for poor training.
Slip and Fall - if a student shoots themselves (or another student) during the class.

Both types of protection would be a good idea, if I was an instructor I'd have both and if I was a "certifying organization", I'd want all my instructors to have both.

HOWEVER... Joel's point regarding the sperm samples is my big worry. When does this move from the state taking reasonable and prudent measure for the safety of its citizens and become unreasonable intrusion and restricting business and my ability to earn a living?

MagicAnimal

Post subject:

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm

Have heard rumors from questionable sources that the NRA will not be amongst organizations that will be recognized by BCA/Sheriff's Assoc to conduct classes. Anyone have any ideas on that they'd care to share?

And as far as insurance goes, who besides the NRA will cover something like this? Several insurance agents said that they knew of no company who'll touch it.

Hmmm, so let me see, if you can eliminate the largest civilian gun training organization in the country AND make the cost of doing business prohibitive, what do you have?

This is starting to smell like the state version of what the Trotskyites are doing to Koscielski's in Murderapolis....

Have heard rumors from questionable sources that the NRA will not be amongst organizations that will be recognized by BCA/Sheriff's Assoc to conduct classes.

There is quite a bit of misunderstanding on the issue. First, the DPS/BCS MN Sheriffs et all will NOT be recognizing ANY instructors. None, nada, zero, nil, zilch...none. Instead, they will be certifying instructor training firms which in turn will issue certification to individual instructors.

The NRA is not going to be one of the certifying agencies because they (the NRA) is not in the business of conducting specialized State mandated classes. As a result, come October 1st (when the new legislation takes effect), not a single NRA instructor will be authorized to conduct MCPPA training classes.

In order for the individual instructor to be able to instruct, one of three possibilities exist: (1) the instructor can take a class from one of the newly recognized instructor training firms and become certified (and you can bet that some of the for-profit firms will charge hefty fees); (2) the individual instructor could form their own business, register with the Sec/State, and do all of the things that will be proposed as part of the certification process by the DPS/BCA, and then self-certify themselves; or (3) the law does allow individual Sheriff departments to recognize people they know and approve as instructors notwithstanding no official certification by any agency.

However, as to #3, I have had several Sheriffs tell me that even though the law gives them that right, they will NOT be doing that.... Instead requiring new certification.

At present, the DPS/BCA has not issued the final guidelines for becoming a training firm. Various proposals have been sent out for comment to a selected few people for comment. Further, BCA Agent Jeff Luther also has been very good about communication and willing to listen to different points of view.

It is my belief that the new standards will result in (a) substantially fewer instructors; (b) more expensive and (c) fewer classes.

It is my belief that the new standards will result in (a) substantially fewer instructors; (b) more expensive and (c) fewer classes.

If they're invoked, I think that's the case. At least some of the instructors who were on the BCA list are likely to give it all up, rather than either jumping through hoops on their own -- to become single-instructor training organizations -- or signing up with the large training organizations.

Speaking for myself, I'll have to spend some time -- hard to come by -- and a bit of money on all the hoop jumping, and I'll do that, if necessary.

As to pricing, I dunno.

I think my fees are fair, but -- if I can toot my own horn for a moment...

If a hypothetical Joe Bob Instructor (in this hypothetical: his only certification comes from one organization, and who has earned no particular reputation, either way) can charge $N, it seems to me that the man who wrote the book on carrying a handgun in Minnesota, and who has, I hope, developed a particularly good reputation (not that I'm the only instructor with that!) could reasonably charge something more.

But we'll see. Meanwhile, I'm doing what I can to encourage the BCA/DPS to grandfather in the old BCA list and accept NRA instructors as NRA instructors, and if that happens, that'll be fine with me.

MagicAnimal

Post subject:

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:36 pm

Methinks it's about time to rev up the "Vermont carry" bandwagon here, in the state where absolutely NOTHING is allowed....

ttousi

Post subject: New Certification

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:52 pm

Delicate Flower

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 amPosts: 3311Location: St. Paul, MN.

I for one will jump through the hoops. I don't think any group should end up with a monopoly on the training. I would also entertain the idea of certifying other "left out in the cold" instructors. Thinking about an association that would be reasonable in cost as long as members shared in some of the monitering etc. See what happens.

I for one will jump through the hoops. I don't think any group should end up with a monopoly on the training. I would also entertain the idea of certifying other "left out in the cold" instructors. Thinking about an association that would be reasonable in cost as long as members shared in some of the monitering etc. See what happens.

That was a good idea.

_________________Just a guy.

EAA10

Post subject: Re:

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:54 pm

Junior Member

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:46 pmPosts: 10

MagicAnimal wrote:

And as far as insurance goes, who besides the NRA will cover something like this? Several insurance agents said that they knew of no company who'll touch it.

I am an insurance agent, and whoever you talked to apparently does not have access to very many markets in insurance. You run your training classes and make money doing it, so it is a business. If someone were to be injured, or God forbid killed, do you think you are going to be sued?

Long story short, yes it is insurable, and it is not cheap......but it is not outrageous expensive either.Just my $.02